Saturday, June 16, 2007

Closing Arguments: "Minister of Injustice"

Bar offers Nifong and Gottlieb depositions as exhibits, for purposes of rebuttal.

State Bar, Doug Brocker is delivering the closing statement:

Nifong has the responsibility as the "minister of justice, not an advocate." Responsibility is to seek justice, not to convict. defendant has right to procedural justice, presented in court of law, not the media.

Disclosure of all evidence to the defendant, especially exculpatory, must be turned over. Prosecutor must be honest and accurate in statements to court. Also, Nifong has responsibility to make true responses to the State Bar.

'Systematic abuse of prosecutorial abuse in Duke lacrosse cases." This continued through the hearing.

Nifong was a "minister of injustice."

Nifong harmed the three players, but also harmed real victims of sexual assault, justice system.

"From very first involvement in the case, Mr. Nifong began to weave a web of deception which has continued up through this hearing."

Not really in dispute that Nifong violated Bar rules--don't require intentional misconduct to violate the prohibition on extrajudicial statements.

Nifong's intent doesn't have to be proved--but even here, Nifong's falsehoods should be treated as aggravation of misconduct.

Rule 3.6 (prohibiting out-of-court statements) is designed to protect 6th amendment right to a fair trial.

Nifong had "flagrant disregard" of the rules on this issue.

Wm'son: how to address Nifong's argument that no one specifically accused?Brocker: Comments that Nifong made heightened the condemnation of the accused--given the fact that the players were identified as suspects by an NTO.

Wm'son--significance to issue of "accused" rather than "indicted."

Brocker: Nifong argument particularly inappropriate in this case given that Nifong's office specifically identified the lacrosse players as suspects.

20 comments:

The decision by this board is far more than just about Mike Nifong. As was stated by the law professor from Duke, this will set a president for how prosecutors will be disciplined for abusing their power in the future. This is an awesome power indeed and the people wheeling this power are by far the most protected from responsibility of any in our government. Based solely on this fact alone when abuse of this highly protected power is abused it must carry a severe penalty, namely that person should never be allowed to participate in our justice system again short of being a defendant. That is the message and the president that must be set in this case and to do less will serve to destroy our system of justice. This is about the integrity of the justice system itself and how those responsible for maintaining that integrity respond to those entrusted with this power and responsibility who fail. The fact is that it is in the best interest of the justice system itself to go to great length to protect the judicial immunity from personal responsibility that they have. "Some day it might be me." By design prosecutors are afforded virtual certainty that they will never be held responsible for abusing their power. The question now is what will the penalty be when one of their own abuses their power to where the abuse is blatant and obvious?

I bring your attention to that Nifong Koolaid drinking woman that is now working for the innocence project stated. That it was the policy that if the prosecutor didn't have the evidence to convince a court or jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt it was OK to proceed with indictment if that prosecutor "believed" the defendant was guilty. Innocent until proven guilty? How many poor people in Durham county have gone to prison because they were pushed into a plea bargain when the DA didn't even believe they had the evidence to get a guilty verdict? It is no secret that the lawyers that survive solely based on being appointed by the court to represent a poor defendant are not the cream of the crop. It is also no secret that these same lawyers depend on the court for clients and are subject to not making waves if they want to continue getting clients. Can you spell plea bargain?

There is no doubt in my mind that every night Mike Nifong prayed that these kids attorney's would come in to negotiate reducing the charges in exchange for a plea. That is how it has always worked. It was never important if he had the evidence, hence the policy of bring charges as long as you "believed" the suspect was guilty. Bring the charges, negotiate a plea deal and move on. On the slim chance it goes to trial and you don't have the evidence to convict, well so what? You put the guy in jail, he had to post bail, he might lose his job, and his record will always show he was charged with … So what if you lose? The defendant was penalized and will be for the rest of his life. INNOCENT UNTIL THE DURHAN DA BELIEVES YOU ARE GUILTY.

This is true all over this nation. This is a major flaw in our judicial system and now we will see what penalty is given to one who is charged and will be proven guilty of violating this most basic principle of our system of justice. What penalty will they, the members of this well protected community, what penalty will they attach for abuse of this trust and power?

9:17 -- That has been my theory for nine months: That Nifong believed he could bully the students into a guilty plea on a significantly reduced charge. His experience dealing with others led him to this conclusion. Given that he believed this would happen, he thought it was fine to blast the team, lie about their cooperation, make racial remarks, etc.

But as one of the lacrosse mom's said on 60 Minutes, he picked on the wrong people this time.

I actually agree with the Chair that a DA merely saying "I believe a crime occurred" is not prejudicial in itself as an extra-judicial statement. It's the fact that there was no credible evidence, the fact that he called the players names, the fact that he claimed it was racially motivated that causes a problem. I'm surprised that the bar is arguing so strenuously that merely saying a crime committed is an issue.

As has been mentioned, the verdict and penalty in this case will set a high profile precedent. And, Nifon almost certainly will appeal (if that's possible for a Bar action) and will cite arguments in this trial when the LAX lawyers deal with him afterwards.

I hope Williamson is getting the record right -- and that the Bar attorneys do a competant job with their arguments and citations of law and Bar rules.

Williamson is essentially trying to make sure all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed. If things are done improperly in this hearing or if there's a sense of things being improper, Nifong could successfully appeal and their decision be overturned. They have to actually consider his defense's valid points. For example, at some point defining "accused" in the rule against inflamming the public was very important because Nifong claimed since he made his comments before anyone indicted. Williamson successfully answered that by getting it on the record the interpretation of "accused" to not necessarily mean indicted.Plus as the other poster stated, they are setting precidents on standards prosecutors will be held to in the future. They have to be very careful to do this right.Even so, there will be criticism. CourtTV is already criticizing this hearing pretty heavily. They are still quite pro-Nifong.

I think people from the South have trouble pronouncing Seligmann for some reason. As K.C. has mentioned several times Nifong kept mispronouning the name. Brocker is doing it as well though. It's not really an important point; but it's perhaps a bit annoying.

Absolutly, he thought he would bully the defendents into a plea bargin. Geraldo quarranteed that "they would be racing each other to the police station to plead out." We can not forget what MSM did to the team and defendents. Geraldo and the others think we will forget their words. I hope not.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review